On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:05:41 -0700, andie nachgeborenen
wrote:
[Popper] admitted that, therefore, falsification
cannot be atomic, proposition by proposition, and can
only be tentative and propvision, not conclusive. He
disputed, however, that this meant that therefore
there was no point in
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PS: If Ian had been quicker on the draw he might have
pointed out that Quine thought that it *was* a problem
for Popper and demanded that you be the one to explain
why you disagreed. I'm not sure you realise how
dismissive you're being.
but it's also
quite annoying for us to be magisterially directed
to
read a 400-page doctoral thesis before we're allowed
to
have opinions.
That's unfair. The mention of diss occurred in a
different context, where person who brought the topic
of social v. natural sciences did so in the
Obviously I'm sorry for that one then.
dd
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:08:26 -0700, andie nachgeborenen
wrote:
but it's also
quite annoying for us to be magisterially directed
to
read a 400-page doctoral thesis before we're allowed
to
have opinions.
That's unfair. The mention of diss
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:05:41 -0700, andie
nachgeborenen
wrote:
[Popper] admitted that, therefore, falsification
cannot be atomic, proposition by proposition, and
can
only be tentative and propvision, not conclusive.
He
disputed, however, that this meant that
I have
my own experience with psychosis and psychoanalysis and I do not think
psychoanalysis is a science. It is a tool to deal with certain psychical
problems, just like medicine is not a science in the sense that physics is a
science. The so called social sciences, marxism included,are
Renato Pompeu:
The so called social sciences, marxism included, are also not
sciences in the sense that physics is a science.
I agree with this in the sense that it is better to call social
sciences social thought. But along the same lines, natural
sciences can be called natural thought, as
andie nachgeborenen wrote:
I'm a little unclear on the point here. You're expected to use
double-blind test in social scientific research.
Well, okay. I guess so. But Freud was not really involved in such a
thing. His output consisted of two main areas. One, very broad
theorizing about the
On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:50:44 -0700, Devine, James
wrote:
I noticed
that a major element of Crews' critique of
Freudianism (in the New York REVIEW
OF BOOKS a few years ago) is that it can't be
falsified (following Popper's
criterion). Unfortunately, this seems to apply to
_all_ of social science
Title: RE: [PEN-L] Skewering stilted language and theory: F. Crews
Sabri writes: I agree with this in the sense that it is better to call social sciences social thought.
in middle school (a.k.a., Junior High), they call it social studies. That makes sense.
Jim
Title: RE: [PEN-L] Skewering stilted language and theory: F. Crews
DD writes:
But as I have pointed out before, not, of course, to
the paradigmatic example of a Popperian social science,
astrology. Unlike any other social scientists, the
astrologers provide me with twelve succinct, specific
Jim D. must be a Libra.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 07:02:45AM -0700, Devine, James wrote:
the predictions of astrology are too vague to be tested or falsified.
(They're much vaguer than those of Milton Friedman's codification of
monetarism, for example, which currently is seen as largely
Porter, Theodore M. 2001. Economics and the History of Measurement in
Judy L. Klein and Mary S. Morgan, eds. The Age of Economic Measurement
(Durham and London: Duke University Press): pp. 4-22. 9: In contrast
astrology developed what was considered to be very important information.
Astrology
On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 20:39:21 -0700, andie nachgeborenen
wrote:
I'm a little unclear on the point here. You're
expected to use double-blind test in social
scientific research
I'm assuming you mean medical research here; I'm
entirely unsure how you'd define the concept of a
double blind in social
Title: RE: [PEN-L] Skewering stilted language and theory: F. Crews
No, I'm more fishy than that.
Jim
-Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 6/12/2003 7:19 AM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Skewering stilted language and theory: F. Crews
Jim D. must be a Libra
Title: RE: [PEN-L] Skewering stilted language and theory: F. Crews
DD wrote
I'm assuming you mean medical research here; I'm
entirely unsure how you'd define the concept of a
double blind in social sciences research, most of which
is not experimental.
FWIW, academic psychology involves
Title: Re: Skewering stilted language and theory: F.
Crews
Astrological theory is testable, but not in either of these
modes.
Predictions must be based on individual horoscopes and
refer
to specific dated events. The kind of test I have in mind
would
be based on the fact that everyday throughout
FWIW, academic psychology involves a lot of
experiments, as does so-called behavioral economics
Asking non-rhetorically, is psychology a social science
and if so why? I tend to call the social sciences
economics, sociology and political science, the idea
being vaguely that these three commit you
22 PMSubject: Re: [PEN-L] Skewering stilted language and theory: F. Crews Right, but verifiability as a criterion of cognitive meaningfulness ismore susceptible to the reflexivity attack than is falsificationsim as acriterion of demarcation -- it was never offered as a criterion of any
Before you start on this route, you have to read Crews. He doesn't proceed from an a priori conception of scientific method. He doesn't have impossibly high standards. He doesn't have illusions and other social science. Above all, he is detailed and precise about specific psychoanalyticla clams
Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
andie nachgeborenen wrote: I'm a little unclear on the point here. You're expected to use double-blind test in social scientific research.Well, okay. I guess so. But Freud was not really involved in such athing. His output consisted of two main areas. One,
andie nachgeborenen wrote:
I used to be a lot
more agnostic about psychoanalysis, and I have a very liberal, almost
Feyerabendian notioon of what counts as science, but Crews convinced
me that psychoanalysis is a fraud as science. As philosophy, that's
another story. jks
in a very
Devine, James wrote:
Sabri writes: I agree with this in the sense that it is better to
call social sciences social thought.
in middle school (a.k.a., Junior High), they call it social
studies. That makes sense.
I believe this gives too much credit as it were to physics. I think
biology
- Original Message -
From: andie nachgeborenen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Popper never through that individual hypotheses could be falsified
atomistically; his discussion of holism in Conjectures and Refutations is
very early and very good. Others got entangled in this dumb debate because
they
This is one more reason I am happy to be a lawyer. I don't have to be respectful to tedious ongoing conversations in philosophy that ought to have been ended years or decades ago, merely because you can't drive astake through theirhearts in the journals. I am getting more Rortyian every day about
- Original Message -
From: andie nachgeborenen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is one more reason I am happy to be a lawyer. I don't have to be
respectful to tedious ongoing conversations in philosophy that ought to
have been ended years or decades ago, merely because you can't drive a
stake
ravi wrote:
i do not know as much as i need to about prevalent paradigms in
psychoanalysis, but it seems to me that in its successful attempt to
gain a monopoly in a particular space (thus stamping out a plurality of
viewpoints), it has also successfully imitated the other sciences.
Carrol Cox wrote:
Actually, psychoanalysis has virtually disappeared from psychiatry and
serious neuro-science. It survives only in literary criticism and among
those marxists Timpanaro described as believing the Freud never made a
mistake. Fewer and fewer medical schools have psychoanalysts on
I'm not getting that Rortyian. For reasons that are obscureto me, I still find it worthwile to talk about philosophy of science, even about Popper. What I'm saying sfw to is the point of a concession I am -- and Popperwas -- happy to make, but which some critics seem to regard, mysteriously, as
- Original Message -
From: andie nachgeborenen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not getting that Rortyian. For reasons that are obscure to me, I
still find it worthwile to talk about philosophy of science, even about
Popper. What I'm saying sfw to is the point of a concession I am -- and
before pretty much all of
it.
Barkley Rosser
- Original Message -
From:
andie nachgeborenen
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 5:43
PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Skewering stilted
language and theory: F. Crews
I've noticed a couple folks
Title: RE: [PEN-L] Skewering stilted language and theory: F. Crews
I wrote:
FWIW, academic psychology involves a lot of
experiments, as does so-called behavioral economics
DD:
Asking non-rhetorically, is psychology a social science
and if so why? I tend to call the social sciences
andie nachgeborenen writes:Before you start on this route, you have to read Crews.
He doesn't proceed from an a priori conception of scientific method. He doesn't
have impossibly high standards. He doesn't have illusions and other social
science. Above all, he is detailed and precise about
Another thing I think Aldo is right about is language. Write in common
parlance.
Academia has a terrible tendency to write in a private language that
keeps it dissociated from the public.
Along that line... Someone suggested that I should read Postmodern
Pooh since I like humor that skewers
Title: RE: [PEN-L] Skewering stilted language and theory: F. Crews
that's a bunch of pooh!
JD
-Original Message-
From: Kenneth Campbell
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 6/11/2003 4:56 AM
Subject: [PEN-L] Skewering stilted language and theory: F. Crews
Another thing I think Aldo
I've noticed a couple folks herein have roots to Berkeley. Do any of youknow this Crews fellow? Any personal thoughts on him?* * *
Crews is an English prof at Berkeley, best known to me as as withering, merciless, and brilliant critic of psychoanalysis. Apparantly he is a recovering Freudian,a
://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
-Original Message-From: andie nachgeborenen
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, June 11,
2003 2:43 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re:
[PEN-L] Skewering stilted language and theory: F. Crews
I've noticed a couple folks herein have roots
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Skewering stilted language and theory: F. Crews
I noticed that a major element of Crews' critique of Freudianism (in the
New
York REVIEW OF BOOKS
I noticed that a major element of Crews' critique of Freudianism (in the
New York REVIEW OF BOOKS a few years ago) is that it can't be falsified
(following Popper's criterion). Unfortunately, this seems to apply to
_all_ of social science (and to Popper).
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JKS wrote:
Crews is an English prof at Berkeley, best known to me as
as withering, merciless, and brilliant critic of psychoanalysis.
Apparantly he is a recovering Freudian,a nd decided to make life
hell for the remaining Freudians. I am not sure whether he has
radical politics, but he sure is
. jksIan Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 2:50 PMSubject: Re: [PEN-L] Skewering stilted language and theory: F. Crews I noticed that a major elem
I'm a little unclear on the point here. You're expected to use double-blind test in social scientific research. And Crews also attacks Freud's theraputic practice, but acknowledges that's different from attacking his purportedly scientific theory. F didn't claim to be just a physician with a
- Original Message -
From: andie nachgeborenen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Actually, the falsifiability criterion is supposed to be a demarcation
test (to mark out scoence from nonscience), and not itself a piece of
science, so the self-reference critique wouldn't apply. Crews' critique of
Right, but verifiability as a criterion of cognitive meaningfulness is more susceptible to the reflexivity attack than is falsificationsim as a criterion of demarcation -- it was never offered as a criterion of any sort of meaningfulness. It would be bad if the verification criterion were not
- Original Message -
From: andie nachgeborenen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Skewering stilted language and theory: F. Crews
Right, but verifiability as a criterion of cognitive meaningfulness is
more susceptible
Ian in reposne to Justin:
It would be bad if the verification criterion were
not cognitively meaningful. But falsfiability was
never supposed to be a piece of science,
just a test of science. jks
=
Right, but we never test science, anymore than we test
capitalism, :-)
46 matches
Mail list logo
